🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the US military – a strategy that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to undo, a former senior army officer has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the effort to subordinate the top brass of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“If you poison the body, the solution may be exceptionally hard and painful for administrations that follow.”

He stated further that the moves of the administration were placing the position of the military as an apolitical force, separate from electoral agendas, at risk. “As the phrase goes, credibility is established a drip at a time and lost in buckets.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including 37 years in the army. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later sent to Iraq to rebuild the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Many of the actions predicted in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and use of the state militias into urban areas – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the appointment of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only swears loyalty to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of firings began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

This leadership shake-up sent a unmistakable and alarming message that rippled throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“Stalin purged a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are ousting them from posts of command with similar impact.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a historical parallel inside the American military right now.”

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

One initial strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under US military doctrine, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain machine gunning victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that actions of international law outside US territory might soon become a possibility domestically. The administration has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been challenged in federal courts, where cases continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up a theoretical scenario where one state's guard is federalised and sent into another state against its will.

“What could go wrong?” Eaton said. “You can very easily see an confrontation in which all involved think they are acting legally.”

At some point, he warned, a “significant incident” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”